Federal Limits On State Regulation Of Interstate Commerce - Constitutional Law

Ex. Maine v. Taylor: upheld law banning the importation of out-of-state baitfish cause had legitimate environmental purpose,( parasites)

Ct. held invalid an OK law forbidding any person to “transport or ship minnows for sale outside the state which were born/raised w/in OK waters

OK failed to resort to nondiscriminatory practices, the state placed no limits on the # of minnows that could be taken by licensed dealers nor did it limit in any way how these minnows could be dealt with in-state.

When a wild animal becomes an article of commerce, its use cannot be limited to the citizens of one state to the exclusion of citizens of another State.

A State may generally not impose higher taxes on out-of-state waste than on in-state waste

IC may be made to “pay its way”

A facially discriminatory tax that imposes on IC the rought equiv of an identifiable and “substantially similar” tax on INTRAstate commerce doesn’t offend the DCC.

Milk retailers all taxed but then subsidies given to in-state producers from the taxes paid by all

A state may provide subsidies to in-state producer from GENERAL REVENUES w/o being required to give them to out-of-state producers also

But can’t tax all producers of a product & then rebate part of the procedes to in-state producers, effectively lowering their costs

Denied tax exemption for facilities that weren’t run primarily for citizens of Maine.

Held unconstitutional cause the statute “functionally serves as an export tariff that targets out-of-state consumers by taxing businesses that principally serve them

Differential tax benefits can only equalize!

Dean Milk Co. Madison

Law bared sale of pasteurized milk that wasn’t processed w/in 5 miles of Madison

Can’t do this, even in the exercise of unquestioned power to protect health & safety, IF REASONABLE NONDISCRIMINATORY ALTERNATIVES ADEQUATE TO CONSERVE LEGITIMATE LOCAL INTERESTS ARE AVAILABLE (USDA guidelines were even stricter)

C & A Carbone, Inc v. Clarkstown

Flow control ordinance: required all solid waste be transported & depositive at the local station for processing at a fee of $81.

Carbone wanted to ship out-of-state for lower fee

By preventing everyone except the favored private local operator from performing the initial processing step, the ordinance deprives out-of-state businesses of access to a local market

The essential vice in laws of this sort is that they bar the import of the processing service

RULE: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST IC IN FAVOR OF LOCAL BUSINESS OR INVESTMENT IS PER SE INVALID, SAVE IN A NARROW CLASS OF CASES IN WHICH THE MUNICIPALITY CAN SHOW, UNDER STRICT SCRUTINY, THAT IS HAS NO OTHER MEANS TO ADVANCE A LEGITIMATE LOCAL INTEREST.

Revenue generation NOT a legitimate local interest

United Haulers Ass’n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mngmt

Facts similar to Carbone EXCEPT the disposal site is owend by the GOV.

Waste disposal is a “traditional government function”

RULE & Distinction: LAWS THAT FAVOR THE GOV IN SUCH AREAS BUT TREAT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BUSINESSES, WHETHER IN OR OUT OF STATE, THE SAME DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAISNT IC FOR PURPOSES OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE

if voters don’t like the higher price charged by gov they can change it by vote

“REASONABLE NONDISCRIMINATORY ALTERNATIVES” standard is a more strict standard that “RB” and allows for judicial inquiry into the true motives where RB doesn’t

KY exempted interest on its own public bonds from state income tax but imposed such taxes on...